When I read what sulfit wrote I may have under-reacted (although sorry about the impaled person in the background? omg I didn't see that until you quoted whoops ha)... Where are all the ESTJ 8s when you need them to defend your quadra you know nothing of!

I'm an ENFP...my only thing is that I do score equally in Ni <-this is why I believe I'm so strongly 6 and counterphobic. So my results generally look like Ne>Ni>Fi. I don't think I could Fe anything though even if I tried... I don't know if this alters anything in socionics or this quadra mysticism...

I'm an ENFP...my only thing is that I do score equally in Ni <-this is why I believe I'm so strongly 6 and counterphobic. So my results generally look like Ne>Ni>Fi. I don't think I could Fe anything though even if I tried... I don't know if this alters anything in socionics or this quadra mysticism...

It might just further up the possibility that you would test as INFp (NiFe) in Socionics.

Cognitive functions in one system ought to be the same as cognitive functions in the other (regardless of what the fools say).

The quadras just group the 4 types that have the same "normal" functions in MBTI.

Iow, both the introverted and extroverted types that share the same last three letters.

And then those two types' anima/animus (so the NFPs and the STJs, or the NTJs and the SFPs, etc).

All of Socionics' major elements make tons of sense MBTI-wise, as long as you accept that the cognitive functions of an individual should be the same in both systems.

If you throw that assumption out the window, then it just becomes a giant stupid clusterfuck with no compatibility whatsoever.

Does it make more sense that one would be use Ne and Fi as one's top two functions in both systems?

Or Ne and Fi in one system, and Ni and Fe in the other system?

Even though both systems are derived from Jung?

Ignore tests. Ignore dichotomies. Ignore type descriptions.

Focus on the functions, and all the dumb, unnecessary complications go away.

The cognitive functions should be the same because both systems are deriving them from the same person, Jung. But when defining oneself using a system, one would have to go by its rules... or else it wouldn't be applicable. Think of it as two people possibly being inspired by Jung and filling in all the blanks themselves (there will be error). Jung wasn't perfect either; many others were/are trying to find different ways to define/measure the same things. Hence, academic battles happen all the time, even (or particularly) when people are discussing the same mechanisms. For instance, Extraversion in the Big Five doesn't necessarily equate to Extraversion in the MBTI; however, they should if we could all agree on one system. But personality is also the expression of genes... so circumstances and intentional activity also matters.

Additionally, regardless of what you are measuring... there will exist a continuum. There is just too much support for trait theory... and it's consistent with the core elements of science.